Press alarmed by Sharon win

LONDON, England (CNN) - Ariel Sharon's landslide win left the world's media reeling on Wednesday over what recently seemed a near-impossible political comeback.

"For once, the nation that so often points to the bloodstained hands of its Arab enemies will have its very own home-grown blood-spattered leader," wrote one reporter in the Independent, a British broadsheet.

Jonathan Freedland, a columnist for Britain's Guardian, echoed the collective sense of shock.

"It's as if Jean-Marie le Pen had become president of France or Ian Paisley ruled over Northern Ireland," he wrote.

IN-DEPTH Israel Election 2001   •  Overview   •  Key players   •  Political parties   •  Israel at-a-glance   •  Israel timeline   •  Portrait gallery   •  Maps   •  Video archive   •  News search   •  Related sites

France's left-of centre Libération daily summed up the result in three ominous words on its front page: "Sharon the Threat." It added in smaller text below that the victory of the Likud leader "raises fears of the worst for the peace process."

The newspaper recalled Henry Kissinger asking Sharon bluntly years ago whether the arch-hawk and state-builder who has fought in five Israeli wars was the most dangerous man in the Middle East.

"Today, the question is still posed," it said.

Reaction ranged from sentiments of outright vilification in the Arab press, to more measured calls for Israel's new prime minister to draw a line under his belligerent past and embrace moderation.

In the United Arab Emirates, the al-Khaleej daily echoed a broader feeling across the Arab world that Sharon's election amounted to an Israeli rebuff of a compromise approach to bridge building with its neighbours.

Voters chose Sharon, the paper said, "To confirm their rejection of peace, their commitment to aggression, expansion and terrorism."

'Sharon kills with a frown'

Jordan's al-Aswaq daily said: "Sharon wins … extremism rules in Israel today," while Saudi Arabia's al-Medina newspaper opined that Sharon and Barak differed little in their ultimate approach.

"Barak kills calmly and with a big smile … Sharon kills with a frown and spits on the body of the victim, then kicks him," the paper said. They are both at the end of the day butchers."

Among the recurring themes was a sense that Sharon's triumph reflected a deep sense of disenchantment among Israel's voters with Barak's peace efforts and the four-month-old Palestinian uprising.

France's Le Monde observed: "Ehud Barak convinced neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians. The latter, whether correctly or not, had the sense of doing business with an interlocutor who was wavering, cold and ungraspable.

"He seemed to them to pursue contradictory objectives: The extension of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, all the while assuring he wanted a viable Palestinian state next to Israel."

The Times of London said the ferocity of the Palestinian revolt stunned Israeli public opinion, goading them to turn to "a man of security."

"Israelis have opted for Mr. Sharon because the immediate threat to their personal security was plainly a more relevant concern than the pursuit of a political dialogue in which compromise seemed impossible."

In the United States, The New York Times urged a balanced approach by the new Bush administration in its lead editorial.

"Washington should counsel the new government to maintain a steady course and avoid the impulse to escalate military confrontations with the Palestinians. Israel cannot afford to abandon the search for peace in the Middle East that has lasted more than two decades."

Reuters contributed to this report.

Sharon wins landslide victory
February 7, 2001

Likud
Avoda (Labour) party
Israeli Prime Minister's Office

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.